Global Emerging Markets All Cap

Global Emerging Markets All Cap

The Global Emerging Markets All Cap strategy invests in between 30-75 high-quality companies that are contributing to a more sustainable future.

Our Global Emerging Markets All Cap strategy was launched in 2009 and invests in between 30 to 75 high-quality companies that are contributing to a more sustainable future. The strategy’s bottom-up approach allows us to find only the very best businesses from an investable universe of some 65,000 companies. We are looking for companies well positioned to contribute to long-term sustainable development; businesses with high quality management teams, franchises, and financials. 

Strategy highlights: a focus on quality and sustainability

  • Companies must contribute to sustainable development. Portfolio Explorer >

  • We invest in high-quality companies with exceptional cultures, strong franchises and resilient financials. How we pick companies >

  • We avoid companies linked to harmful activities and engage and vote for positive change. Our position on harmful products >

  • Our approach is long-term, bottom-up, high conviction and benchmark agnostic

  • We focus on capital preservation as well as capital growth – we define risk as the permanent loss of client capital

Latest insights

Voting

Voting: Q2 2025

Global Emerging Markets All Cap voting: 1 April - 30 June 2025

Voting by country of origin

Voting by proposal category

During the quarter there were 477 proposals from 33 companies to vote on. On behalf of our clients, we voted against 11 proposals and abstained from voting on 16 proposals.

We voted against the remuneration report at Dino Polska as we believe the current policy does not encourage executives to focus on long-term goals. Implementing a long-term incentive plan could, along with enhanced disclosure and transparency on the remuneration structure, be beneficial for both the company and its shareholders. (one proposal)

We voted against changing the terms of the board at EPAM Systems as the proposed changes would require all directors to stand for election annually instead of on staggered terms. While we understand the rationale for annual elections, we believe that a staggered approach provides continuity and helps prevent excessive turnover. We also voted against changes to limit the liability of certain officers, as we believe the company has demonstrated its ability to attract and retain an admirable management team under the current structure, which encourages managers to think and act as long-term owners. Finally, we voted against the appointment of the auditor as they have been in place for over 10 years. The company has given no information on rotating its auditors, a practice we believe is important to ensure a fresh perspective is brought to its accounts. (three proposals)

We voted against a proposal at MercadoLibre to move the company’s registration from Delaware to Texas as it did not provide clear reasons for the change, and we do not believe the move aligns with shareholders’ interests. (one proposal)

We voted against the recasting of votes (the ability for voters to change their original votes on a particular matter in response to new information or changes to a proposal) for directors and the supervisory council at RaiaDrogasil. We believe the principle of recasting votes for an amended group of candidates is poor practice and would prefer the group to be resubmitted for voting. (two proposals)

We voted against the election of a director at Trip.com due to the company's lack of disclosure regarding director attendance, the number of board meetings held, and the voting results from the previous year. Our aim is to encourage greater transparency and adoption of global governance standards. (one proposal)

We voted against the recasting of votes for the supervisory council at WEG as we believe the principle of recasting votes for an amended group of candidates is poor practice and would prefer the group to be resubmitted for voting. We also abstained from voting on a request for a separate board election and the election of a supervisory council position. According to Brazilian voting practices, we are unable to vote for this proposal while simultaneouslysupporting the board in its candidate elections. (two proposals)

We voted against a request for approval to invest in wealth management products at Zhejiang Supor as we believe it carries excessive risk relative to the limited additional returns these products would provide. Making such financial investments is not central to the business and we believe surplus cash is better kept in time deposits at banks. (one proposal)

By supporting the appointment of the auditor at Jerónimo Martins, we abstained from voting on three other proposals related to auditor appointments. (three proposals)

We abstained from voting on proposals relating to the accounts and acts of the board at Regional. At the time of voting, the company had not released its annual report and/or audited financial statements, leaving us without significant information to make an informed decision. (10 proposals)

We abstained from voting on the establishment of a supervisory council at TOTVS as the company had not disclosed which candidates would be up for election to serve on the council. (two proposals)

We voted against a shareholder proposal regarding simple majority voting at EPAM Systems as this topic was already covered by the company's own proposal, which we supported. (one proposal)

Source for company information: Stewart Investors investment team and company data. This stock information does not constitute any offer or inducement to enter into any investment activity. Portfolio data shown is from representative strategy accounts of the strategy shown above. Voting chart numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding. SHP means: Shareholder Proposal.

Voting: Q1 2025

Global Emerging Markets All Cap voting: 1 January - 31 March 2025

Voting by country of origin

Voting by proposal category

During the quarter there were 59 resolutions from 12 companies to vote on. On behalf of clients, we voted against six resolutions.

We voted against executive remuneration at Bank Central Asia because we believed it was excessive. (one resolution)

We voted against the election of a director and their remuneration at IndiaMART as we seek to encourage greater diversity and independence on the board. (one resolution)

We voted against the election of two directors and an audit committee member at Samsung Electronics as we do not believe them to be truly independent. (three resolutions)

We voted against the election of the audit committee chair at Unicharm as we do not believe they are independent. (one resolution)

Source for company information: Stewart Investors investment team and company data. This stock information does not constitute any offer or inducement to enter into any investment activity. Portfolio data shown is from representative strategy accounts of the strategy shown above. Voting chart numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding. SHP means: Shareholder Proposal.

Voting: Q4 2024

Global Emerging Markets All Cap voting: 1 October - 31 December 2024

Voting by country of origin

Voting by proposal category

During the quarter there were 28 resolutions from eight companies to vote on. On behalf of clients, we did not vote against any resolutions.

Source for company information: Stewart Investors investment team and company data. This stock information does not constitute any offer or inducement to enter into any investment activity. Portfolio data shown is from representative strategy accounts of the strategy shown above. Voting chart numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding. SHP means: Shareholder Proposal.

Voting: Q3 2024

Global Emerging Markets All Cap voting: 1 July - 30 September 2024

Voting by country of origin

Voting by proposal category

During the quarter there were 153 resolutions from 17 companies to vote on. On behalf of clients, we voted against three resolutions.

We voted against the appointment of the auditor at Philippine Seven as they have been in place for over ten years. The company has given no information on intended rotation which we believe is important for ensuring a fresh perspective on the accounts. We also voted against proposals on transaction of business, as the company did not provide enough information about the proposals. We wanted to avoid giving them unrestricted decision-making power without sufficient clarity. (two resolutions)

We voted against the appointment of the auditor at Vitasoy as they have been in place for over ten years. The company has given no information on intended rotation which we believe is important for ensuring a fresh perspective on the accounts. (one resolution)

Source for company information: Stewart Investors investment team and company data. This stock information does not constitute any offer or inducement to enter into any investment activity. Portfolio data shown is from representative strategy accounts of the strategy shown above. Voting chart numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding. SHP means: Shareholder Proposal.

Portfolio Explorer

If you are unable to view the portfolio explorer, please re-open in Google Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari or Opera. IE11 is not supported.

For illustrative purposes only. Reference to the names of example company names mentioned in this communication is merely for explaining the investment strategy and should not be construed as investment advice or investment recommendation of those companies. Companies mentioned herein may or may not form part of the holdings of Stewart Investors. Holdings are subject to change.

Certain statements, estimates, and projections in this document may be forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon Stewart Investors’ current assumptions and beliefs, in light of currently available information, but involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Actual actions or results may differ materially from those discussed. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. There is no certainty that current conditions will last, and Stewart Investors undertakes no obligation to correct, revise or update information herein, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Source: Stewart Investors investment team and company data. Securities mentioned are all investee companies* from representative Asia Pacific All Cap Strategy, Asia Pacific & Japan All Cap Strategy, Asia Pacific Leaders Strategy, European All Cap Strategy, European (ex UK) All Cap Strategy, Global Emerging Markets (ex China) Leaders Strategy, Global Emerging Markets Leaders Strategy, Global Emerging Markets All Cap Strategy, Indian Subcontinent All Cap Strategy, Worldwide All Cap Strategy and Worldwide Leaders Strategy accounts as at 30 June 2025. *Assets that the strategies may hold which an active decision has not been made, and sustainability assessment does not apply, include cash, cash equivalents, short-term holdings for the purpose of efficient portfolio management and holdings received as a result of mandatory corporate actions. Holdings of such assets will not appear on Portfolio Explorer. Not all strategies are available in all jurisdictions or to all audience types.

The Stewart Investors supports the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The full list of SDGs can be found on the United Nations website.

Source for Climate Solutions and impact figures: © 2014–2025 Project Drawdown (drawdown.org). Source for Human Development Pillars: Stewart Investors investment team.

Source for climate solutions and human development analysis and mapping: Stewart Investors investment team. Contributions are defined by the team as demonstrable contributions to any solution, either direct (directly attributable to products, services or practices provided by that company), or enabling (supported or made possible by products or technologies provided by that company).

Investment terms

View our list of investment terms to help you understand the terminology within this website.